Niall Ferguson’s Future History
After Iran goes nuclear, (quote) “Tdevastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West.”
Ferguson is selling this as fiction (which it is). James Frey might take note.
Does Ferguson suggest that “pre-emption” is the best policy.
Read the entire essay. And decide for yourself.
Niall Ferguson, once again, shows us why historians almost invariably turn out to be poor prognosticators. He may be selling this brand of “future history, then I, for one, am not buying. Okay, since everybody’s in the prediction game, here’s mine: any exchange of the type envisioned by Ferguson would not so much result in the “twilight of the West” but, rather, the annihilation of Islam itself. A nuclear attack on Israel, much less the United States, would likely result in immediate calls for the “Final Solution to the Islamic Question”–and the conversion of the Once and Future Caliphate in a giant, glowing pile of cinders. In fact, we wouldn’t even have to go nuclear: we have the chem/bio capability to simply wipe out the Middle East, but leave all the oil wells and buildings in place. Would China or Russia side with, say, Iran? Very probably NOT. Here’s why: a) they’ve got their own issues with restive Muslim populations and b) if we offered them a piece of the post-war action (e.g., oil and territorial concessions), they’d be fools not to seriously consider our offer. Remember that scene in Martin Scorcese’s “Casino” when Ginger Rothstein demands that her lover, Nicky Santoro, with whom she’s having an affair, kill Sam, her cuckolded husband, who is also Nicky’s best friend? Nicky retorts, “I’ve known the guy for 35 years and I’m supposed to whack him for YOU??!!!” Same thing: neither the Russians nor the Chinese particularly like us, but we’re known quantities and they can do business with us. We’re responsible adults and we don’t believe in beheading people to “get closer to God.” From their vantage point, why would it be in their interest to risk incineration by siding with they both view as motley crew of religious fanatics? Hell, they may be Communists (or hyper-nationalists), but they’re not idiots. Here’s another fly in Ferguson’s ointment: he conveniently ignores, or gives short schrift, to the fact that any nuclear attack against Israel would quickly turn the Palestinian populace–everybody’s favorite “lovable losers”–into one giant case of “collateral damage.” Nuclear explosions and radioactive fallout are mindless things and they respect no borders. That means “Palestinistan” would also be “wiped off the map” if the mullahs push the nuclear button. Yeah, I guess it would be swell to have a nuke or two, but the mullahs seem to have already “misunderestimated” our capacity to get angry and crazy. That’s the sword hanging over Islam today: it’s only one bad decision away from extermination.
Comment by Mark Jaeger — 1/15/2006 @ 1:29 pm
Mark is quite correct. I’ve often asked “What part of T-A-R-G-E-T do the Mullahs not understand?” One of the reasons I think Bush has been so keen to reform the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab world in order to deal with terrorism is to prevent just such a scenario as Mark describes as a result of nuclear terrorism, or even just the jihadis attacking everybody else in the world and the rest of the world deciding that “The problem is Muslims. No Muslims, no problem.” He is a man who has Arab friends, after all. He does not want to see them destroyed in an orgy of fire because the jihadis made Islam intolerable to everybody else.
Comment by Michael Lonie — 1/15/2006 @ 8:35 pm
Iran is gonna wipe Israel out with a couple of 20KT bombs? I don’t think so…
Comment by Al Superczynski — 1/15/2006 @ 9:26 pm
Buy tadalafil… Buy tadalafil…
Trackback by Buy tadalafil — 10/9/2006 @ 7:21 am